AoS Sunclaw Vs Eternal starhosts

[CitizenCake]

I'm having trouble deciding what I want to build towards with my 2k army. Sunclaw has a lot of good stuff, plus uses the sunclaw which I love. The eternal though just seems so dang tough, and d3 damage when not moving seems better to me than 2 damage against deamons. What are everyone's experiences with these starhosts comparatively?

 

[LizardWizard]

Both lack durability. Mortal Wounds, which are abundant this edition, will eat the Saurus Guard alive. Sunclaw normally has high damage out put, but it is also brittle. Considering Sunclaw can be expanded into a single drop Fangs of Sotek I would collect towards Sunclaw.

 

[Putzfrau]

SUN
CLAW
SUN
CLAW
SUN
CLAW


YEAR OF THE SAURUS!!!


... in all seriousness Guard just get absolutely obliterated by MW and theres generally no shortage of that. Also, the most successful lists right now are lists with great board control. Death, Daughters, these are armies that can really flood the board, clog up objectives, and outlast you.

Sunclaw can do that... kind of.

 

[Canas]

Eternal starhost is horrificly broken when facing an army that has no mortal wounds, especially if you back it up with a skink priest (re-rollable 2+ saves with rend protection ftw). It's what makes em hilarious in small games when the amount of mortal wounds tend to be limited.

However, guards are simply too expensive the moment they face mortal wounds.

Essentially the only way to play an eternal starhost is if you'l be able to avoid most, if not all, mortal wounds with em. Which just isn't practical.

Sunclaw is a tad more cost-efficient making the mortal wound weakness less of an issue.

 

[Aginor]

I would also go for the Sunclaw, just because you have more bodies on the table.

 

[Torxhol Drakescale]

I love my guard, but as soon as someone considers mortals, the Eternal would fold like a card table.